What is movement?

>>8585519
Movement is displacement of a point from one coordinate to another.

The rate of movement with respect to time is acceleration.

>>8585519
Macroscopic motion is characterized by cohesive fields of particles moving in the same direction. In physics, the cohesion can be defined by the forces (usually electromagnetism or gravity) that hold them together, and the definition can be extended to include energy/waves.

>>8585520
Don't you mean velocity?
Acceleration would be the change in the rate of movement over time, no?

>>8585519
Science is for telling stories about things that move and drawing pictures of things that move. It is about measuring how fast and how far and relating measurements to each other. Science doesn't say anything about what movement is, or what is really happening when something changes position.

If you want speculation about what movement is, look into philosophy and metaphysics. A lot of scientists like to engage in philosophy and metaphysics, and they aren't always clear about the difference between those things and science. But philosophy and metaphysics are speculation. They produce no answers, but only more or less plausible or pleasant guesses. Every time someone comes up with an indivisible factor, someone else comes along and divides it, or replaces it with a different one.

Everybody knows what movement is in a basic sense. There is no need to describe it or draw pictures of it. No one knows what movement is in any complete or absolute sense. There are ways to know more about reality, but they have nothing to do with science or philosophy.

>>8586542
>There are ways to know more about reality, but they have nothing to do with science or philosophy.

Go on.

>>8586547
Not that anon but he is probably talking about drugs. The only one that does anything in this regard though is DMT.

This. >>8586542

Nothing moves but your representation of the objects your representation makes in a space your representation creates by separating the objects your representation made.

There is no such thing as movement, but the story of objects and position and momentum are a useful representation.

Everything is a story and every story came about as a recursion and you keep the ones that are useful to be believed. Absolutely everything reduces to a story that is useful to be believed or it is not because it stops. You can't know anything about what stops your story, but you can know that your story stopped.

All logic is just comparing stories that didn't happen in an attempt to find one that is useful to be believed, and so the more you look past the trick of the dialectic and see the recursion as a whole, the more you realize that everything is a story and none of it exists.

What exists, you can't know. So be content with the myopic dialectic of stories that fools you into getting the immediate correction in your representation and leave it at that.

Don't waste your time with philosophies that just fool you with their rhetorical tricks.

Except for this one of course.

There's no underlying explanation for a lot of things like movement, inertia, space, energy etc. Research into the holographic principle may eventually yield some answers.

>>8585519
I think you're looking for this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

>>8585519
>Diodorus held that nothing can be moved, since to be moved it must be taken out of the place in which it is and put into the place where it is not, which is impossible because all things must always be in the places where they are.

>>8587656
>There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length
That is literally all you should take away from that article, everything else is just borderline popsci garbage.